Inmates have as much right to DNA science as prosecutors: Editorial

David Coffman, who headed the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement's DNA database, shows a DNA match on his computer screen.AP Photo/Mark Foley

We have seen the incredible power of DNA to exonerate the innocent. But even after hundreds of convicts have walked out of jail, cleared of their crimes, prisoners still must fight to get access to law enforcement’s DNA databases.

That’s more than an injustice — it’s a threat to public safety. Prosecutors should have a strong interest in making sure they’ve put the real criminal behind bars.

An inmate shouldn’t have to bankrupt his family in order to gain access to evidence that might prove him innocent. Yet without a state statute, defendants are at the mercy of prosecutors and judges. Only nine states currently have statutes that grant the defense access to DNA databases. In the rest, including New Jersey, defense attorneys can’t do the search without a judge’s order.

An inmate is allowed access to his own sample, but not the ability to look for a match that could implicate someone else. Even if a defense attorney takes the issue to court, prosecutors can throw up roadblocks.

Jean Barrett, a private criminal defense attorney in New Jersey for more than 30 years, knows the problem well. She said she had to fight for access to the DNA database, and old evidence to perform DNA testing, for murder and sexual assault cases in Mercer and Somerset counties.

“I’ve met with very, very strong resistance from the prosecution,” she said. “I’ve had to do extensive litigation. In one case, I had to go to appellate court.”

In the meantime, the real culprit could be among the public, while his DNA sample — collected after a past conviction or arrest — sits silently in the records.

Judges here granted Barrett access, but that doesn’t always happen in other states, according to a New York Times report last week. Judges may say they don’t have the power to force the state to comply.

This echoes an absurd 2009 Supreme Court ruling that said prisoners don’t have a right to post-conviction DNA testing. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority that “a criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man.”

Allowing defendants to test DNA evidence — even at their own expense — risks “unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice,” he stated.

And we thought having a chance to prove your innocence was what criminal justice was supposed to be about. Either laws should be changed, or guidelines should be set, so every prosecutor knows when to contest a defendant’s right to DNA evidence.